Jump to content

Talk:Vaginal lubrication

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eloerc (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 27 February 2019 (→Images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Picture

"Under perfect conditions a highly aroused young woman will lubricate profusely."

Am I the only one thinking this section needs a picture? TheHungryTiger 13:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:"Am I the only one thinking this section needs a picture? TheHungryTiger 13:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)" -
:: No i think it needs pictures too. --not signed in for reasons of anonminity.

Must it be a young woman? just a curious point. Goodralph 19:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, but youth may be considered one of the `conditions'. Youth only constricts the definition, so `young' is not incorrect; nor is `old women'. I would assume you could safely change it to just `women' and it should still work.--Capi crimm 20:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is vagina. Sonjeev kumar (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission of germs

However, Discovery Health[1] notes that... "Women sometimes worry that their genitals will have an unpleasant odor or that there may be germs on their genitals which would be passed on to their partners. (...) As far as transmission of germs or disease, cunnilingus between healthy, disease-free people is entirely safe and clean."

because of the `disease-free' part. If you want it back in remove the `However', since it only agrees with the previous statement. Also note it is self-evident. That being it says... `If you are disease free you cannot transmit diseases'. Also you can transmit germs, just not ones that cause disease since you don't have a disease. As for safe and clean, safe depends on the situation. Cunnilingus while skydiving or driving may not be a `safe' idea. It can also be quite messy.--Capi crimm 20:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as tautological as it sounds. For example, analingus between healthy people can potentially cause disease because flora that are healthy symbiotes in the colon can be disease agents in the throat.--(Sebbo the Unregistered User)151.203.127.125 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


omg lmao

here's a tip:

Despite popular belief it is possible to get or give a sexually transmitted disease to another person through cunnilingus or felatio. ya i know that's probably not spelled correcty. As an example: if an individual who is disease free goes down on someone who has AIDS, the person going down can get AIDS by doing so. It can also be transmitted in the opposite way as well. I think most people think that oral sex is safe and you can't get diseases in this way, but this is not the case.

Wow. What an inspiring entry.
Yes, it is possible to contract STIs through oral-genital contact. I'm not so sure it's a "popular belief" that oral sex makes you immune, and if it is, then I hope we make some worldwide educational changes to dispel that belief.
But that's why God invented condoms and dental dams. --Kuronekoyama 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Vaginal dryness is the condition where this lubrication is insufficient.

Does this mean that the compound does not work the way it should, or that there isn't enough of it? --Merovingian 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TSS?

What does Toxic Shock Syndrome have to do with this article? I read that one, but don't see anything related there. 207.237.193.23 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gloss provided in the see also section. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I don't know if the picture is particularly useful - the shine that could be attributed to vaginal lubrication may also be the result of piercing. There's a lot of vagina, but not much lubrication. Plus, the person who uploaded it, there sole actions on wikipedia have been to upload and display images. I also think there's better ones, like Image:Vulva labeled.jpg, though even that one isn't incredibly clear - lubrication is a texture thing, not visual. At the minimum, it doesn't have the distracting piercing. WLU 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my picture will better illustrate the subject. Lubrication clearly visible when you compare skin texture to one on buttlocks. BR Yestadae (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture does not really show the concept of lubrication in a useful way. Furthermore, this picture is obviously part of some pornography oriented source. A picture showing the Bartholin's gland and maybe a scheme of how the secretion is produces could be much more helpful for the quality of the article.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Can you find one? BrainyBabe (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on re-reading this, I am going to be bold and replace the current one with the "Vulva labeled" photo. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:04, 20
  • Why the hell can't we just have a diagram? Pornographic IMO -[User:Darkhawk|Darkhawk]]

Pyridine

I can't help but notice that vaginal lubrication contains pyridine... if you look under that article, it says that pyridine is a toxic carcinogen. Is this accurate? - Shipton (not signed in)

http://sexcausescancer.ytmnsfw.com/ (Warning, may be considered NSFW)

Some YTMNDer and Wikipedian has reached a rather worrying conclusion about Vaginal lubrication and Pyridine... I'll quote both articles here if you don't want to go to YTMND.

From Pyridine:

Pyridine is a clear liquid with an odor that is sour, putrid, and fish-like.... Pyridine is a harmful substance if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through skin, it is known to reduce male fertility and is considered carcinogenic as well.

From Vaginal Lubrication:

The lubrication fluid contains water, pyridine, squalene...

Shouldn't this be worrying? AKismet 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors and readers on Wikipedia are concerned the statement about pyridine being a natural constituent of vaginal secretion. The original source of this information about vaginal secretion and pyridine is Dr. Paul Spinrad, a physiologist who wrote in detail on the subject in his book The RE/Search Guide to Bodily Fluids during the late 1990s. Yes pyridine is highly toxic and is a suspected carcinogen, but methanethiol and hydrogen sulfide are also highly toxic and exist in the human body in minute traces, specifically in the colon, giving feces and flatus their characteristic odors. The presence of pyridine in the vaginal secretions of the human female is not harmful since it is present only in minute traces. Methanethiol and hydrogen sulfide have such powerful odors that the human nose can detect them at just a few parts per million in the air, and the same thing is true for pyridine with its strong "fishy" odor1. Furthermore, pyridine is not present in freshly produced vaginal secretion. The odor of freshly produced vaginal secretion is similar to that of vinegar, yogurt or sour milk, due to the presence of acetic acid (found in vinegar) and lactic acid (found in yogurt and sour milk) 234. Pyridine is a by-product of bacteria feeding upon the vaginal secretion, and pyridine accumulates in very minute traces, causing a fish-like odor. Eventually pyridine itself is actually metabolized by anaerobic bacteria into simpler compounds that are odorless. --Richontaban 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think anyone's concerned about this. And I moved it to the bottom, where it should go, and am contemplating removing it outright as it doesn't have any suggestions to improve the talk page. WLU 19:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tüscher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.62.223 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 5

http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2409398.html

is about the drying practises in Africa and their health risks and not about vaginal lubrication itself. Ive edited the section because I checked out the article only to find that it contradicted what the section in the article said. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Male penile lubrication

The article should maybe mention the various types of male lubrication that are on the market nowadays. A significant problem in modern sexual relations is the lack of a natural male lubricant. It is possible to imagine that in the future, pharmacists will develop a drug comparable to Viagra that would try to produce a greater amount of chemical lubrication. It's also possible to imagine that with the help of genetic manipulalions, this added lubrication could be eventually be standardized in the general population as a voluntary human biological evolution. ADM (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture Indeed Isn't Useful

Because the woman in question is only partially aroused, the female equivalent of "semi hard." When a woman is TRULY aroused, the clitoris jacknives angrily, and the lips swell like crazy.

67.148.120.93 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)stardingo747[reply]

I think it's safe to say that the physiology of each individual person is... by definition individual. What you describe isn't necessarily true of all women. If the picture on display is only "somewhat" aroused, it adequately displays a state that most everyone will go through - that is, if this is 'minimal,' then necessarily all arousal will pass through this stage. In other words, finding a picture of a completely flooded vulva isn't going to be helpful because not every woman will have such a reaction, or that of a 'jacknifed' clitoris. ExLegeLibertas (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between vaginal discharge and vaginal lubrication

Is there a true difference between vaginal lubrication and Vaginal discharge? This article says vaginal lubrication is produced primarily during arousal, and that artical makes it seem like vaginal discharge is a result of some kind of infection. What do you call just the normal moisture that is always present in the vagina, not necessarily during arousal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhplover (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 June 2010‎

'Dry sex' edit in January 2013

I have copied the following comment from my talk page to here, so that other interested editors may be more likely to see it and to add to any discussion:

You misread what the source says. Hi, your edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaginal_lubrication&diff=532774377&oldid=532771859, is wrong. Dry sex is a consequence of cleaning the vagina, NOT for the purpose of cleaning it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit was along time ago, and I had totally forgotten about it. I think that the part you are referring to was when I changed the phrase, "The rationale for the practice is that a dry vagina is tighter than a lubricated vagina" to "The rationale for the practice seems to be for cleansing purposes". I imagine that I made this change because the abstract of the cited source says, "The men described ... the use of drying agents by women for vaginal cleansing purposes". The "practice" referred to in the article text is described there as "removing vaginal lubrication in some way". Having read it all again, I must say that I am still at a bit of a loss. Perhaps you could be more specific as to where I went wrong in summarising that source. Maybe you could suggest better wording for that sentence. --Nigelj (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing image

I recently reverted an edit that removed the markup for two images from the page. To my surprise, only one reappeared. On inspection, it turns out that although File:Female Genital Organs (frontal view) detailed macro.jpg is specified in the markup, it doesn't appear because, "it can only be used on pages for which it is specifically allowed." I'm not attached to it, but I wonder if other editors think that this, as a second image, would improve the article. If so, we should "contact an administrator," if not, we should remove the markup. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vaginal lubrication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vaginal lubrication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex reassignment surgery

Do women who have undergone SRS have lubricated neo-vaginas? I think this should be mentioned here. 31.154.81.10 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some trans women report this. However it's not universal. One of the earlier attempts at making self-lubricating neo-vaginas was colovaginoplasty. However there is a new method being developed at Mount Sinai Hospital that trans women have experimentally undergone. This new method uses tissue grafts from the peritoneum, which naturally emits serous fluid. This method should produce more realistic secretions without having to take a section of bowel like the colovaginoplasty does, thus also preventing the need for intestinal surgery as well.[1] Gwenhope (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A Patient Gets the New Transgender Surgery She Helped Invent". WIRED. Retrieved 2017-09-18.

Images

Eloerc, regarding this and this... Like I stated, see Talk:Sexual arousal#Picture of male arousal. This type of thing has been discussed at the Vulva article and related articles as well. The image is not of a prepubescent child. A hairless vulva does not automatically equate to "prepubescent." Obviously, many women shave. This image is educational because it shows the vulva in an unaroused state and then in an aroused state. There is currently no free image for use on Wikipedia that is as informative as that one when it comes to female sexual arousal/vaginal lubrication. Furthermore, removing the hairless images and only leaving the one with hair removes diversity from the article. As you can see at the Vulva article, we show diversity of vulvas...including those that are shaved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC) It does look like a prebuscent vulva. It is hairless and very closed in both the non aroused and "aroused" state. Mine hasn't been closed since I was 12 and an open look does not indicate arousal. Why is there a child protection warning on the image itself page? Also women have internal sex organs and you cannot tell if they are aroused by looking at their genitals. Eloerc (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaginal_lubrication&oldid=885384699"